Why no EOS for Zeiss

Moderated by: guardian

Visit the FM Store · Image Upload · Buy & Sell
FM Forum Rules

FM Forums | Alternative Gear & Lenses | Join Image Upload
1

3 end

hans98ko
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.2 #1 · Why no EOS for Zeiss

Due to Canon's present day poor quality and not allowing good lens makers like Zeiss and Leica to make lenses for their users are 2 of the reasons why I am really considering switching back to Nikon or maybe over to Sony or Pentax for my next system upgrade. Anyway digital is not like film photography where equipment last forever, this goes for digital lenses too. Look at the EF-S and FX lenses now, they will be obsoleted once users switch over to FF.

Jul 24, 2008 at 03:43 AM

mh2000
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.2 #2 · Why no EOS for Zeiss

hmmm... as an EOS user of more than 20 years I'd say that Canon gear is the best it has ever been... not that it is Leica or Zeiss... but at a tiny fraction of the cost and being able to still be the pro's choice world-wide... I don't know. Granted, I guess they could come out with a Golden-L series of lenses priced like Leica... but I seriously wonder how many they would sell...

>>Due to Canon's present day poor quality...

Jul 24, 2008 at 05:16 AM

thrice
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.2 #3 · Why no EOS for Zeiss

hans98ko wrote:Look at the EF-S and FX lenses now, they will be obsoleted once users switch over to FF.

Sorry for nitpicking but FX are the full frame, DX are the crop frame lenses.

I agree that FF bodies will become cheaper but I don't think APS-C format will go away for at least another couple of decades.

I see no real reason why Zeiss can't simply make a focus confirmation MF version of their lenses for EOS, so users like myself and many others won't have to supplement the cost of their zeiss lenses with a quality adapter!

Jul 24, 2008 at 05:26 AM

TeamSK jay
Online
Image Upload: Off

p.2 #4 · Why no EOS for Zeiss

mh2000 wrote:
hmmm... as an EOS user of more than 20 years I'd say that Canon gear is the best it has ever been... not that it is Leica or Zeiss... but at a tiny fraction of the cost and being able to still be the pro's choice world-wide... I don't know. Granted, I guess they could come out with a Golden-L series of lenses priced like Leica... but I seriously wonder how many they would sell...

>>Due to Canon's present day poor quality...

Cannon at a tiny fraction of the price? All to often people come up with this Zeiss expensive - Canon cheap mantra that can only stem from completely realized cognitive dissonance, here are a few price comparisons to consider:

35L = $1,180
ZF35= $826

85L = $1870
ZF85 = $1033

CZ21 2.8 = $2500 - $3000
300 2.8L = $4100 [a best wide to best telephoto comparison]

Of course there are some other comparisons where Canon is a little cheaper but not enough to say that they are a tiny fraction of the price or consistently offer better value.

Edited on Jul 24, 2008 at 05:48 AM

Jul 24, 2008 at 05:45 AM

Justin D
Offline
Buy and Sell: On

p.2 #5 · Why no EOS for Zeiss

35L = $1,180 ZF35= $826 85L = $1870 ZF85 = $1033
I suspect if Zeiss made a current 1.4 wide angle and a 1.2 short tele, the prices would be off the earth... I think you'll find second hand the Contax lenses that correspond directly with the Ls go for significantly more than the Ls new. Certainly the 85 1.2 would. Same with the 135 2.0, the 50 1.2 etc. Where there are direct equivalents, the Zeiss costs more. As it should - in most cases they are better lenses.

Jul 24, 2008 at 05:52 AM

pascal03
Online
Image Upload: On

p.2 #6 · Why no EOS for Zeiss

Has anyone actually written to Zeiss to find out why they do not make lenses for Canon ?

If it doesn't have to do with patent issues or licensing issues, maybe it is possible they don't think Canon user's would buy manual focus lenses when Canon L's offer the high speed USM AF with decent quality glass that would cost half of what a Zeiss manual focus lens would cost.

Maybe Nikon or Sony actually asked Zeiss to make lenses in their mount and Canon does not think it needs Zeiss lenses to be competitive in the market.

One can only speculate until a valid reason from a reliable source can provide an answer.

Jul 24, 2008 at 06:02 AM

TeamSK jay
Online
Image Upload: Off

p.2 #7 · Why no EOS for Zeiss

Well it's already been quoted in this thread but here is the full interview where the official statement was made: http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/content_page.asp?cid=7-7890-8183

Jul 24, 2008 at 06:11 AM

StevenPA
Online
Buy and Sell: On

p.2 #8 · Why no EOS for Zeiss

pascal03 wrote:
Has anyone actually written to Zeiss to find out why they do not make lenses for Canon ?

Zeiss is great about replying to email; I've sent them a few. Their answers can be cryptic and short though, or sometimes they just flat out "don't know". That was their answer when I asked what the focal length of the 35-70/3.4's macro function is.

Maybe Nikon or Sony actually asked Zeiss to make lenses in their mount and Canon does not think it needs Zeiss lenses to be competitive in the market.

I don't believe Nikon is all that happy about ZF lenses. For Nikon, more choice is only good if it's a Nikkor.

Jul 24, 2008 at 08:26 AM

StevenPA
Online
Buy and Sell: On

p.2 #9 · Why no EOS for Zeiss

Justin D wrote:
35L = $1,180 ZF35= $826 85L = $1870 ZF85 = $1033
I suspect if Zeiss made a current 1.4 wide angle and a 1.2 short tele, the prices would be off the earth... I think you'll find second hand the Contax lenses that correspond directly with the Ls go for significantly more than the Ls new. Certainly the 85 1.2 would. Same with the 135 2.0, the 50 1.2 etc. Where there are direct equivalents, the Zeiss costs more. As it should - in most cases they are better lenses.

Wait until we see the price of the new 18/3.5. Wowsa, in my neck of the woods people are already talking about prices close to 2 grand. And look at the current 100/2. $1700. Yikes.

Jul 24, 2008 at 08:29 AM

Lotusm50
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.2 #10 · Why no EOS for Zeiss

pascal03 wrote:
Maybe Nikon or Sony actually asked Zeiss to make lenses in their mount and Canon does not think it needs Zeiss lenses to be competitive in the market.

Nikon had nothing to do with Zeiss making ZF lenses in the Nikon F mount. As Steven suggested, I bet that Nikon is none too pleased about the availability of ZF lenses.

Sony is a completely different story. Sony contracted with Zeiss to design lenses for them (actually, to be accurate, they contracted with them to collaborate with them on lens designs). Sony helps design, manufacturers, markets and sells the "Zeiss" ZA lenses for their DSLR's, and has them totally integrated into their system. Sony completely controls the "Zeiss" ZA lenses at every step. When Sony sells a "Zeiss" ZA lens, Sony directly benefits. When Zeiss sells a ZF lens, Nikon gets no direct benefit (possible indirect benefit from people buying Nikon bodies -- that they would not have other wise bought -- to use the ZF lenses).

Jul 24, 2008 at 10:50 AM

Lotusm50
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.2 #11 · Why no EOS for Zeiss

StevenPA wrote:
Wait until we see the price of the new 18/3.5. Wowsa, in my neck of the woods people are already talking about prices close to 2 grand. And look at the current 100/2. $1700. Yikes.

I think, at least in the US, US$2000 is a bit high. Here is a company listing it for $1450. That seems about right to me.
See: http://store.zacuto.com/product.php?productid=358

Jul 24, 2008 at 11:00 AM

brainiac
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.2 #12 · Why no EOS for Zeiss

hans98ko wrote:
Due to Canon's present day poor quality...

You mean like this?:

extreme corner unscaled:

more central unscaled crop:

That's a 17-40 zoom on a 1Ds3. Great lens. Great camera. Great value (well, the lens, certainly).

> ...and not allowing good lens makers like Zeiss and Leica to make lenses for their users are 2 of the reasons why I am really considering switching back to Nikon or maybe over to Sony or Pentax for my next system upgrade.

Switch away, but Canon will continue to make highly competitive lenses and cameras. Which are better or worse than other companies' alternatives? That's for you to find out.

> Anyway digital is not like film photography where equipment last forever, this goes for digital lenses too. Look at the EFS and FX lenses now, they will be obsoleted once users switch over to FF.

No. I am using a Zeiss 28 today which I bought in 1987. Well chosen lenses can stand you in good stead for decades. Even Canon ones. 200 f1.8 anyone?

This blanket brand-oriented witch hunt isn't appropriate today. Canon makes some of the best lenses in the world. So does Nikon. So does Zeiss. So does Leica. They all make some less good gear too.

Edited on Jul 24, 2008 at 11:24 AM

Jul 24, 2008 at 11:23 AM

slungu
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.2 #13 · Why no EOS for Zeiss

Justin D wrote:
35L = $1,180 ZF35= $826 85L = $1870 ZF85 = $1033
I suspect if Zeiss made a current 1.4 wide angle and a 1.2 short tele, the prices would be off the earth... I think you'll find second hand the Contax lenses that correspond directly with the Ls go for significantly more than the Ls new. Certainly the 85 1.2 would. Same with the 135 2.0, the 50 1.2 etc. Where there are direct equivalents, the Zeiss costs more. As it should - in most cases they are better lenses.

Well, one thing to keep in mind is that the two 1.2 Zeiss lenses were only made in small numbers as aniversary lenses, not for mass production like Canon's L lenses. Of course, when the 18mm ZF is listed here in Europe at 1.300EUR, that's some heavy cash, but if it is that good, it will take the wind out of the 21mm used prices, not to mention it's C/Y brother.

Jul 24, 2008 at 11:28 AM

brainiac
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.2 #14 · Why no EOS for Zeiss

thrice wrote:
I see no real reason why Zeiss can't simply make a focus confirmation MF version of their lenses for EOS, so users like myself and many others won't have to supplement the cost of their zeiss lenses with a quality adapter!

I agree. I am starting another thread about this to encourage people to contact Zeiss and ask. "Ask and it shall be given to you". Asking can't hurt, and the more of us that do it, the more likely it is that Zeiss will listen...

Jul 24, 2008 at 11:29 AM

jjlphoto
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.2 #15 · Why no EOS for Zeiss

Cableaddict wrote:
Even if so, reverse-engineering is still patent infringement.

Reverse engineering is not patent infringement if done to insure compatibility, which is what a third party lens with an EOS mount/EOS logic protocol is.

I suspect it has something to do with the relationship Zeiss had with Japanese camera company Yashica begining ion the 1970's, later bought by Kyocera. Most likely some sort of agreement not to compete regarding certain types of lenses for certain types of cameras.

Jul 24, 2008 at 11:35 AM

brainiac
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.2 #16 · Why no EOS for Zeiss

Don't forget that Zeiss has produced, or at least stamped its label on quite a few electronically controlled lenses, including G-system, N-system, and alpha. I don't think you can claim that it's an aversion to electronics.

Jul 24, 2008 at 11:52 AM

Andi Dietrich
Offline
Buy and Sell: On

p.2 #17 · Why no EOS for Zeiss

My theory is that Zeiss promised to Sony and maybe Nikon, not to make lenses in EOS mount. That would be really "uncool"

Jul 24, 2008 at 12:00 PM

Mike V
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.2 #18 · Why no EOS for Zeiss

These guys have done it:

http://www.birger.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=ef232_home

Jul 24, 2008 at 12:31 PM

mawz
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.2 #19 · Why no EOS for Zeiss

For starters, Canon _has_ licensed the EF mount to Kodak. Thus the only non-Canon EF cameras.

Note that the ZF/ZK/ZS line all lack any electronics, that's the most likely sticking point for a ZE line. I don't see Zeiss making lenses for a mount that are out of spec for that mount and you can't make EF lenses in-spec without electronics. The current lenses are all in-spec for their mounts and only the ZK lenses have anything resembling electronic coupling (As KA mount uses coded contacts for transmitting aperture information rather than electronics).

Jul 24, 2008 at 03:01 PM

mh2000
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.2 #20 · Why no EOS for Zeiss

and you are comparing the ZF35/2 price to EF 35/1.4L instead of the EF 35/2 why

I guess by the same logic Canon is the same price as Leica since the EF 50L costs the same as a new Summicron-R 50... good logic?

>>35L = $1,180
ZF35= $826

etc.

Jul 24, 2008 at 03:31 PM

TeamSK jay
Online
Image Upload: Off

p.2 #21 · Why no EOS for Zeiss

mh2000 wrote:
and you are comparing the ZF35/2 price to EF 35/1.4L instead of the EF 35/2 why

I guess by the same logic Canon is the same price as Leica since the EF 50L costs the same as a new Summicron-R 50... good logic?

>>35L = $1,180
ZF35= $826

etc.

Most users, most of the time, are going to use the 35mm focal length at apertures smaller than f2. I don't see most purchasers of the 35L choosing it over the 35/2 because of maximum aperture. They are interested in image quality at smaller apertures. Of course there is a value to be assigned to that big aperture that the 35L offers but I was responding to the assertion that Canon was a "tiny fraction of the price of Zeiss". Zeiss might be a little more expensive, but not a lot is my point.

Jul 24, 2008 at 04:02 PM

StevenPA
Online
Buy and Sell: On

p.2 #22 · Why no EOS for Zeiss

Jay, I really disagree with that, sorry. How many threads have we seen with "show us your 35L shots" only to have one eyelash in focus, and that's considered desirable. Even if small apertures are where most people shoot most of the time, the bread and butter shots are almost always wide open. A more valid comparison might be the Contax 35/1.4, which was about $1500 new, I think.

Jul 24, 2008 at 04:08 PM

StevenPA
Online
Buy and Sell: On

p.2 #23 · Why no EOS for Zeiss

mawz wrote:
For starters, Canon _has_ licensed the EF mount to Kodak. Thus the only non-Canon EF cameras.

This was for a body though. And we all know that camera companies make their profits, especially in the digital world, on lens sales. Maybe Zeiss needs to work on an EF mount camera!

Jul 24, 2008 at 04:09 PM

TeamSK jay
Online
Image Upload: Off

p.2 #24 · Why no EOS for Zeiss

StevenPA wrote:
mawz wrote:
For starters, Canon _has_ licensed the EF mount to Kodak. Thus the only non-Canon EF cameras.

This was for a body though. And we all know that camera companies make their profits, especially in the digital world, on lens sales. Maybe Zeiss needs to work on an EF mount camera!

The license for the mount came from their earlier partnership to build digital cameras. Note the Canon DSLRs between 1995 and 2000:

http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/dslr/chrono_1995-.html

Jul 24, 2008 at 04:19 PM

StevenPA
Online
Buy and Sell: On

p.2 #25 · Why no EOS for Zeiss

There may have also been an exchange of an important amount of digital technology that Canon saw itself (and presumably has) benefited from greatly. Surely they must have known that the early digital cameras would be prohibitively expensive (and they were) and quickly eclipsed as sensor technology got off the ground (as it did).

Jul 24, 2008 at 04:22 PM


FM Forums \| Alternative Gear & Lenses \| Join Image Upload 1 2 3 end